Siman 325

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid. 109a] that one who leases a field from his fellow for less than seven years shall not sow it with flax, because it exhausts the soil such that it does not return to its original state for seven years. If he received it for seven years, he may sow flax in the first year; and for eight years, he may sow flax for two years, and so on forever. This applies if, at the time he leased it, he did not speak with him regarding what he would sow, but rather stipulated with him that he would give him such and such measures of wheat or barley per year. For if he stipulated what he would sow, he is forbidden from sowing anything that is harder on the soil than what he stipulated. However, when he did not stipulate, he may sow whatever he wishes except for flax, because it exhausts the soil excessively [it appears to me]. Or, it is possible that what was explained in the previous siman—that if he leased it for barley he is not permitted to sow wheat—this is specifically when he rented it for one year. But if he rented it for two or three years, he may sow whatever he wishes except in the final year, because the exhaustion of the soil is only for one year; but with flax, the exhaustion is for seven years. This requires further study for the practical law.

Some say that this applies specifically to a lease, but in a sharecropping arrangement, he may sow even flax, for the owners will take a portion of it. And some disagree, as is written there. According to this, according to the first opinion, even in a lease, if he wishes to give him from the flax, he is permitted to sow, as is written there. [That which the Sma wrote in subsection 3, that this siman deals with a sharecropper, is astonishing, as the Tur wrote, and even according to the opinion of the Rambam it is not certain; and perhaps it was not meant precisely, and his intention was only regarding a sycamore tree, which will be explained, and examine it closely].

In the time of the Shas, there was a type of tree called shikmah, and they would cut its branches for building beams, and the branches do not return to being beams for seven years. Therefore, if one rented the field for less than seven years, he has no right to the shikmah beams or the like. And even regarding the improvement that the branches improved while they were in his possession, he has no share, because he did not descend at all for the shikmah trees. But if he rented it for seven years, he has a right in the first year as with flax. And this matter applies both to chakhirut and to kablanut.

If one received a field for sowing and trees grew in it on their own in a place where it is not the custom to take a portion of the trees: if they grew in a place that is not fit for sowing, such as on the border, he has nothing in them. If they grew in a place fit for sowing, if he said that he desires that trees grew in it, and even if they had not grown he would have planted them, they appraise the trees for him as if he had planted them and he gives him their value when he leaves it. But if he said that he preferred to sow in the place of the trees, they look at the trees: if they were in a state that if they were uprooted they would be fit to plant in another place, he must give him for them the value of saplings standing to be planted, which is less than the value of a planted, standing tree. And he cannot say "I will give you only the value of the sowing since you desire sowing," because he can respond, "I would have sown in this a precious thing like saffron or the like" [Sma]. And if they are not fit to plant, he gives him only the value of the wood. The Rambam did not make all these distinctions, and this is his wording in the eighth chapter of Sekhirut: One who receives a field from his fellow for a few years, the receiver has nothing in the trunk of a sycamore or the like, nor in the improvement of the trees that grew on their own in the field; but they calculate for him the place of the trees as if there were in them that seed which he sowed in the field, provided that the trees grew in a place fit for sowing, but if they grew in a place that is not fit for sowing, they do not calculate anything for him. Thus far his words. The first opinion is the opinion of the Tur, and it is possible that they do not disagree at all, for the Rambam is dealing with a case where he did not have permission to plant trees, and the Tur is dealing with a place where he had permission to plant trees and he went down into the field for that purpose, to plant trees. For so it is implied in the Gemara ibid. [ibid. 109a] that when he went down on that condition, he has a portion in it, and when he did not go down on that condition, he has no portion in it. Therefore, it is implied from the words of the Tur that he is believed according to his statement because he went down for that purpose.

It is stated in the Tosefta [Bava Metzia chapter 9]: One who receives a field from his fellow to sow it with barley may not sow it with fenugreek; fenugreek, he may not make it a cucumber field; a cucumber field, he may sow it with fenugreek; fenugreek, he may sow it with barley; wheat, he may not sow it with flax; flax, he may sow it with wheat. One who receives a field from his fellow to sow it with wheat may not sow it with barley; barley, he may not sow it with flax; flax, he may sow it with barley; barley, he may sow it with wheat. Thus far its words. And it is evident that there is a printing error in this, for wheat is harder [on the land] than barley, and therefore it is necessary to read the version in reverse: wheat, he may sow it with barley; barley, he may not sow it with wheat. However, in the Yerushalmi the version in both is "he may not sow it," and we do not rule accordingly [and it appears to me that this is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the Mishnah 106b; and also regarding flax the version there is "he may not sow it with wheat," and this is also so, and we do not rule like him, and therefore the early authorities omitted it].